Nor would I label you as one. You are a contributing member and I have often enjoyed your posts and interacting with you.

I do not think you've presented trollish behavior (not that you can't or won't in the future but that wouldn't make you a troll either).

~~~~

To address the rest of your post:

Why is it that grinding up a cow with 100 others is considered normal and acceptable?

Modern food and this "business" is basically a product of Nixon's admin and the Farm Bill of that time which has continued to be a gift to agribusiness. Until this year when those in the pockets of the "business" tried to tell us once again that everything we ingest has nothing to do with us and we should just mind our own...

It does not need to, nor should it, be this way. It is folly.

One reason beef is so unhealthy is how it is raised:

Human Health Benefits
A growing body of research indicates that pasture-raised meat, eggs, and dairy products are better for consumers' health than conventionally-raised, grain-fed foods. In addition to being lower in calories and total fat, pasture-raised foods have higher levels of vitamins, and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats than conventional meat and dairy products.

Studies have shown that milk from pasture-fed cows has as much as five times the CLA (a “good” type of fatty acid) as milk from grain-fed cows. iii And meat from pasture-fed cows has from 200 to 500 percent more CLA as a proportion of total fatty acids than meat from cows that eat a primarily grain-based diet. iv

Free-range chickens have 21% less total fat, 30% less saturated fat and 28% fewer calories than their factory-farmed counterparts. v Eggs from poultry raised on pasture have 10% less fat, 40% more vitamin A and 400% more omega-3's. vi

...

If you, like the average American, eat 67 pounds of beef per year, then switching from conventional beef to pastured beef would reduce your yearly calorie intake by 16,642 calories! ix

In fact food has lost much of it's nutrition (as I've been trying to point out all along):

Organic fruits and vegetables work harder for their nutrients
Produce has been losing vitamins and minerals over the past half-century
Deborah K. Rich, Special to The Chronicle
Saturday, March 25, 2006

The fruits and vegetables that our parents ate when they were growing up were more nutritious than the ones we'll serve our children tonight. On average, the produce we grow in the United States has lower levels of several vitamins and minerals today than it did 50 to 60 years ago. By growing or buying and eating organic produce, however, we can make up much of the difference. Organically grown fruits and vegetables are proving to have higher levels of antioxidants, vitamins and minerals than their conventionally grown counterparts.

Donald R. Davis, a research associate with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, recently analyzed data gathered by the USDA in 1950 and 1999 on the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes). Three minerals, phosphorous, iron and calcium, declined between 9 percent and 16 percent. Protein declined 6 percent. Riboflavin declined 38 percent and ascorbic acid (a precursor of vitamin C) declined 15 percent.

A study of the mineral content of fruits and vegetables grown in Britain between 1930 and 1980 shows similar decreases in nutrient density. The British study found significantly lower levels of calcium, magnesium, copper and sodium in vegetables, and of magnesium, iron, copper and potassium in fruit. The report concludes that the declines indicate "that a nutritional problem associated with the quality of food has developed over those 50 years."

The decline in our produce's nutritional value corresponds to the period of increasing industrialization of our farming systems. As we have substituted chemical fertilizers, pesticides and monoculture farming for the natural cycling of nutrients and on-farm biodiversity, we have lessened the nutritional value of our produce. Integrated well-established organic farming systems can counter the decline.

...

The decline in nutrients
Our push for higher yields per acre and cheaper food is largely to blame for the decline in nutrient levels in conventional produce. With irrigation and fertilization we can get more pounds per acre, but often not without sacrificing nutrients per pound produced. This "dilution effect" on nutrient density was widely observed by agricultural scientists even 20 to 30 years ago. The use of hybrids selected for high yields has probably compounded the trade-off between yield and nutrients. Davis writes, "Modern crops that grow larger and faster are not necessarily able to acquire nutrients at the same, faster rate, whether by synthesis or by acquisition from the soil."

In addition to pushing a plant to grow big fast, heavy fertilization can interfere with a plant's ability to synthesize vitamin C. A plant will increase protein production and reduce carbohydrate production when it absorbs an abundance of nitrogen. "Because vitamin C is made from carbohydrates, the synthesis of vitamin C is reduced," writes Worthington.

Use of potassium fertilizers (potassium is the "K" in N-P-K fertilizers) can reduce the phosphorous content of some plants. For the plant to absorb phosphorous, it must have adequate amounts of magnesium. But when potassium is added to soil, plants absorb less magnesium, and, indirectly, less phosphorus as well.

...

The large populations of microorganisms that typically inhabit organically managed fields also produce substances that combine with minerals in the soil and make them more available to plants, a function that can be especially important for iron absorption. Iron is usually present in soil, but it is often in an unavailable form.

"Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient levels in U.S. food supply eroded by pursuit of high yields"
September 2007
Author: Brian Halweil
Worldwatch Institute

Steady progress in increasing crop yields and animal production levels has often been achieved at the expense of food nutrional quality, the environment, and in some cases, food safety and animal health.

This "Critical Issue Report" documents the extent of nutrient decline, reviews ways that farmers and breeders can increase nutrient density, and explains the importance of doing so in order to improve public health.

October 28, 2007
Official: organic really is better
Jon Ungoed-Thomas

THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

October 28, 2007
Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food
Jon Ungoed-Thomas

The research has shown up to 40% more beneficial compounds in vegetable crops and up to 90% more in milk. It has also found high levels of minerals such as iron and zinc in organic produce.

Last Updated: Friday, 7 January, 2005, 14:12 GMT
Organic milk 'higher in vitamins'

Milk from cows reared differently was compared

Drinking organic milk has more health benefits than drinking non-organic, a study has suggested.

The research was presented to the Soil Association's annual conference in Newcastle.

It showed organic milk has higher levels of vitamin E, omega 3 essential fatty acids and antioxidants, which help beat infections.

...

The study found cows farmed organically produced milk which was, on average, 50% higher in Vitamin E than conventionally produced milk.

Organic milk was also 75% higher in beta carotene, which is converted into Vitamin A in the body.

It was also two to three times higher in the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthine.

Antioxidants are the naturally occurring substances in plants that protect the body from free radicals - 'bad' chemicals in the blood.

Free radicals alter cholesterol in a process known as oxidation, which is thought to speed up the hardening of the arteries.

Higher levels of omega 3 essential fatty acids, which are believed to help provide protection from coronary heart disease, were also found in organic milk.

The study concluded that drinking a pint of organic milk a day would provide 17.5% of the required daily intake of Vitamin E for women, and 14% of that for men.

The researchers suggest it also provides as much beta carotene as a portion of vegetables, such as brussel sprouts.

And eggs:

Most of the eggs currently sold in supermarkets are nutritionally inferior to eggs produced by hens raised on pasture. That’s the conclusion we have reached following completion of the 2007 Mother Earth News egg testing project. Our testing has found that, compared to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from hens raised on pasture may contain:

• 1⁄3 less cholesterol
• 1⁄4 less saturated fat
• 2⁄3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene

It's cheap food because it has little value.

You would have to eat five to six servings of grain-fed meat to equal the nutrient intake from one serving of grass-fed, and you would be consuming all that additional, unneeded poor-quality fat and calories as well.